World Cup Coverage

User avatar
stealthpapes
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6528
Joined: 05 Jun 2013 13:25
Location: proverbs 26:11

Re: World Cup Coverage

by stealthpapes » 22 Jul 2013 10:32

It's generally acknowledged that he's a fucking moron.

sandman
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11808
Joined: 01 Oct 2008 18:25
Location: WE ARE NOT YOUR KIND

Re: World Cup Coverage

by sandman » 22 Jul 2013 10:33

Ok, it's obvious someone is a little upset that he predicted Reading would lose every week.
Last edited by sandman on 22 Jul 2013 10:36, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
TBM
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 16572
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:27
Location: Prediction League Champion 2009/2010, 2010/2011 & 2013/2014

Re: World Cup Coverage

by TBM » 22 Jul 2013 10:34

winchester_royal
TBM Do people honestly watch BBC/ITV football for the pundits though? - i would rather it be free than having to pay just cos you get better pundits


It's not like it would cost the BBC more to get in better pundits though. The amount they pay to the likes of Hansen and Linekar for their 'services' is extortionate.


Hansen is off after the world cup so that'll free up some more money to get others in

But on BBC you had/have Lee Dixon, Danny Mills, Michael Owen, Pat Nevin, Jimmy Armfield - all decent pundits IMHO

Its just the likes of Shearer and Lawro that spoil it

User avatar
Bandini
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3761
Joined: 03 Sep 2010 16:01
Location: No one must know I dropped my glasses in the toilet.

Re: World Cup Coverage

by Bandini » 22 Jul 2013 10:43

Is there another Michael Owen, other than the new "ambassador" for Shinpad Insurance?

User avatar
stealthpapes
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6528
Joined: 05 Jun 2013 13:25
Location: proverbs 26:11

Re: World Cup Coverage

by stealthpapes » 22 Jul 2013 10:49

sandman Ok, it's obvious someone is a little upset that he predicted Reading would lose every week.


:|

yeah.


User avatar
stealthpapes
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6528
Joined: 05 Jun 2013 13:25
Location: proverbs 26:11

Re: World Cup Coverage

by stealthpapes » 22 Jul 2013 10:50

But on BBC you had/have Lee Dixon, Danny Mills, Michael Owen, Pat Nevin, Jimmy Armfield - all decent pundits IMHO


Points lost for not using "your Lee Dixons, your Danny Mills ... "

User avatar
soggy biscuit
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 8524
Joined: 04 Nov 2004 20:29
Location: BURNING VARIOUS NATIONAL FLAGS

Re: World Cup Coverage

by soggy biscuit » 22 Jul 2013 10:54

I have serious levels of hatred pluralising singular things

User avatar
6ft Kerplunk
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5626
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 10:09
Location: Chasing buffalo and the good times.

Re: World Cup Coverage

by 6ft Kerplunk » 22 Jul 2013 11:08

Can someone expalin how BT Sport decided that Jake "even your mum thinks I'm a bit of a drip" Humphries should be the frontman for their football coverage. Its like looking at MOTD and thinking Lineker is a bit too edgy for a mainstream audience, lets try and find a nice young man sports casual clothing to do it. All he needs is a catchphrase "Knowing me, knowing you, A-ha" should do it.

User avatar
TBM
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 16572
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:27
Location: Prediction League Champion 2009/2010, 2010/2011 & 2013/2014

Re: World Cup Coverage

by TBM » 22 Jul 2013 11:14

6ft Kerplunk Can someone expalin how BT Sport decided that Jake "even your mum thinks I'm a bit of a drip" Humphries should be the frontman for their football coverage. Its like looking at MOTD and thinking Lineker is a bit too edgy for a mainstream audience, lets try and find a nice young man sports casual clothing to do it. All he needs is a catchphrase "Knowing me, knowing you, A-ha" should do it.


He's a bit like Ben Shephard if you ask me


User avatar
Hoop Blah
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 13715
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:00
Location: I told you so.....

Re: World Cup Coverage

by Hoop Blah » 22 Jul 2013 11:39

Alexander Litvinenko
Ian Royal It's not a simple fact. They did it for years and there are now more digital channels availble to use for it.


But their programming and priorities have changed. They are simply not prepared to give put a whole day's cricket guaranteed priority over everything else. Keep gainsaying it as much as you like, but I'll keep repeating it because it;s just true. The free-to-air channels have other priorities than to devote so much uninterrupted and guaranteed airtime to sport.

I could write you an 800 word deconstruction of the reasons for this, but frankly I cba


I can do it in 8.

They can't afford to pay for it anymore.

As for the pundits, I think they probably play to the lowest common demoninator far too much. The majority of the audience for our national sport just need some bland appreciation for who's played well and who hasn't and a very high level appraisal of why the game might've panned out as it did.

The more technical analysis that a relatively small percentage of 'football geeks' want is probably going to switch off the more casual viewer and ITV and BBC have to play to that audience more than the die-hards who will watch anyway.

Totally agree they need to freshen things up and remove the old boys clique who appear far too comfortable with their in jokes and obvious cliches.

User avatar
Silver Fox
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 17990
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 10:02
Location: From the Andes to the indies in my undies

Re: World Cup Coverage

by Silver Fox » 22 Jul 2013 13:18

6ft Kerplunk Can someone expalin how BT Sport decided that Jake "even your mum thinks I'm a bit of a drip" Humphries should be the frontman for their football coverage. Its like looking at MOTD and thinking Lineker is a bit too edgy for a mainstream audience, lets try and find a nice young man sports casual clothing to do it. All he needs is a catchphrase "Knowing me, knowing you, A-ha" should do it.


I don't know why they've got anyone to present it all, what a load of balls BT Sport is. Thanks all the pcunts who moaned about how it was unfair that Sky had all the footy so that we now have to pay twice* AND it means I've lost my baseball coverage, twats

*obvs I won't as I'm not going to be too upset if I miss the occasional Stoke game

User avatar
TBM
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 16572
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:27
Location: Prediction League Champion 2009/2010, 2010/2011 & 2013/2014

Re: World Cup Coverage

by TBM » 22 Jul 2013 15:11

Silver Fox
6ft Kerplunk Can someone expalin how BT Sport decided that Jake "even your mum thinks I'm a bit of a drip" Humphries should be the frontman for their football coverage. Its like looking at MOTD and thinking Lineker is a bit too edgy for a mainstream audience, lets try and find a nice young man sports casual clothing to do it. All he needs is a catchphrase "Knowing me, knowing you, A-ha" should do it.


I don't know why they've got anyone to present it all, what a load of balls BT Sport is. Thanks all the pcunts who moaned about how it was unfair that Sky had all the footy so that we now have to pay twice* AND it means I've lost my baseball coverage, twats

*obvs I won't as I'm not going to be too upset if I miss the occasional Stoke game


Free for BT Broadband users 8)


And you had to pay for ESPN anyway [last season], which you also get free with BT Sport

Rev Algenon Stickleback H
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3187
Joined: 22 Apr 2004 20:15

Re: World Cup Coverage

by Rev Algenon Stickleback H » 22 Jul 2013 20:53

TBM Do people honestly watch BBC/ITV football for the pundits though? - i would rather it be free than having to pay just cos you get better pundits


People watching because of the pundits seems unlikely, but I do increasingly feel, especially on match of the day, is that the pundits think it's a football discussion show rather than a highlights show.


Their world cup coverage is just embarrassing though. I remember turning the tv on to watch a group game in 2006. I think it something a bit obscure like Mexico v Iran, but they just smirked all through the build up at the ridiculous thought that people wanted to see the game. It didn't seem to occur to them that the people who'd turned the tv on the watch the game might actually want to watch the game.

Analysis extends no further than talking about each team's premier league players, or maybe ones who play for top champions league sides, as obviously, players they haven't heard of "lack quality". It's just pure ignorance, and they aren't even embarrassed by it.

To be frank, if they aren't capable of actually providing meaningful analysis they might as well just scrap the build up, and start the programme three minutes before kick-off.


User avatar
winchester_royal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11083
Joined: 28 Aug 2007 21:32
Location: How many Spaniards does it take to change a bulb? Just Juan.

Re: World Cup Coverage

by winchester_royal » 22 Jul 2013 22:04

Tbh I like the idea an interactive/red button feature that amplifies the atmosphere and has no commentary. Something that all channels broadcasting football should consider IMHO, as there are becoming increasingly few commentators that I actually enjoy listening to.

User avatar
Platypuss
Hob Nob Moderator
Posts: 8087
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 21:46
Location: No one cares about your creative hub, so get your fukcin' hedge cut

Re: World Cup Coverage

by Platypuss » 22 Jul 2013 22:07

winchester_royal Tbh I like the idea an interactive/red button feature that amplifies the atmosphere and has no commentary.


For our televised home games that's called the "mute button".

User avatar
winchester_royal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11083
Joined: 28 Aug 2007 21:32
Location: How many Spaniards does it take to change a bulb? Just Juan.

Re: World Cup Coverage

by winchester_royal » 22 Jul 2013 22:19

Platypuss
winchester_royal Tbh I like the idea an interactive/red button feature that amplifies the atmosphere and has no commentary.


For our televised home games that's called the "mute button".



User avatar
Ian Royal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 35156
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 13:43
Location: Playing spot the pc*nt on HNA?

Re: World Cup Coverage

by Ian Royal » 23 Jul 2013 17:47

sandman Lawro knows more than he lets on tbf and is probably the best out of the studio regulars because he's the only one of them who goes out to do commentary for the radio etc and therefore watch games.

His entire repertoire is pathetic and unfunny smart arse comments that add nothing. It's like he thinks he's too good for the job, when in fact he's awful at it. Maybe the guy's actually really funny with a good dry sense of humour. But that's not what you want in a commentator / pundit and he just comes across as a oxf*rd retard.

AthleticoSpizz
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 13734
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 19:49
Location: A Hicks Hoof from Coley Park

Re: World Cup Coverage

by AthleticoSpizz » 23 Jul 2013 19:15

TBM Do people honestly watch BBC/ITV football for the pundits though? - i would rather it be free than having to pay just cos you get better pundits
in one!

Listen, I have no problems with Mr Smith from Surrey paying to watch his beloved Manchester United on Sky or the likes, no more than I have any problems with Mr Scrimshawe from Carlisle paying to watch Surrey.

The issue (for me) is purely, the crown jewel National team games..............and FIFA and UEFA obviously trying hard to distance themselves even further from what was once accepted as the working mans game.

And as for Dirkers, and the likes of the Beeb not wanting to lose a whole days broadcasting to one sporting event.....what about the f11cking golf then???? (only joking), however as an arguement, i'm stumped! thats when their underused 301/Red Button can be utilised, no?.

User avatar
Whore Jackie
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1640
Joined: 09 Feb 2006 13:48
Location: Over 'ere

Re: World Cup Coverage

by Whore Jackie » 01 Aug 2013 16:49

Lawro to have 'reduced role' on MOTD. Replaced with Gus Poyet, Robbie Fowler, Les Ferdinand, Michael Owen, Robbie Savage and Vialli.

Small mercies that Vialli signing. Somewhat negated by 'Chappers' taking over MOTD2.

User avatar
Alexander Litvinenko
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2709
Joined: 23 Jan 2012 13:58
Location: Winner - HNA? Music Quiz 2013. The Great Sounds of Polonium 210.

Re: World Cup Coverage

by Alexander Litvinenko » 01 Aug 2013 17:41

AthleticoSpizz And as for Dirkers, and the likes of the Beeb not wanting to lose a whole days broadcasting to one sporting event.....what about the f11cking golf then???? (only joking), however as an arguement, i'm stumped! thats when their underused 301/Red Button can be utilised, no?.


All I can do is recount the gist of an absolutely empassioned speech from a guy from the ECB at a conference on broadcast rights I went to about 3 years ago.

He was defending the sale of England cricket rights to Sky, and he made the point that no free-to-air broadcaster would guarantee uninterrupted airtime as they wanted - but that was before digital went nationwide, so things might be different now.

But what he was really clear on was that the extra money that a sport gets from selling to the likes of Sky is so, so valuable when spent on youth development and the grass-roots game, and without it the game wouldn't be as strong as it is now. Without cricket being sold to Sky there'd be far fewer coaches, none of the under-16, under 18 teams etc and no women's game....

He was aware of the danger of the next generation of kids not seeing cricket, and that's why it'd absolutely vital to them that there's a "highlights" programme on free-to-air so it's not lost completely - it's as important to them as MOTD is to the Premier League.

The real problem is that free-to-air broadcasters are trying to appeal to everyone, so they've neither the broadcast time available to devote exclusively to one sport, nor the money available to buy it, at the expanse of other sports or types of programmes.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Four Of Clubs, MSN [Bot], WoodleyRoyal and 15 guests

It is currently 20 Nov 2019 20:45